Homicide law reform, gender and the provocation defence: a comparative perspective

 The operation of the partial defence of provocation has animated significant debate for more than two decades among scholars, legal practitioners, politicians and the community. In recognition of the injustices that result from its operation, criminal justice systems worldwide have conducted reviews of the law of provocation and have implemented divergent reforms targeted at minimizing the influence of gender bias in the law's operations. Drawing on the voices of over one hundred members of the Victorian, New South Wales and English criminal justice systems, this book provides a much-needed comparative analysis of the operation of this controversial partial defence to murder, the varied approaches taken to reforming the law of provocation and the effects of these reforms in practice.

R v Middendorp

This book brings together feminist academics, lawyers and activists to present an impressive collection of alternative judgments in a series of Australian legal cases.

The High Court on crime in 2014: Outcomes and jurisprudence

This article examines the Australian High Court decisions in 2014 which relate to criminal matters. This systematic analysis of all High Court judgments commenced in this Journal in 2010 and is now undertaken annually. The article explains the principles that derive from these cases and identifies jurisprudential themes from the decisions. It also sets outthe significance of the cases and the possible wider consequences of the decisions.

Australia

The book provides an analysis of the grocery retail market in a very large number of countries with an international report written by an economist. The chapter on Australia describes how the law in Australia addresses competition concerns arising from the grocery retail market, analyses its success in addressing these concerns and considers possible future reform.

Social connections and suicidal behaviour in young Australian adults: Evidence from a case-control study of persons aged 18-34 years in NSW, Australia

Purpose: There is evidence that social isolation is a risk factor for suicide, and that social connections are protective. Only a limited number of studies have attempted to correlate the number of social connections a person has in their life and suicidal behaviour. Method: Two population-based case-control studies of young adults (18-34 years) were conducted in New South Wales, Australia. Cases included both suicides (n=84) and attempts (n=101). Living controls selected from the general population were matched to cases by age-group and sex. Social connections was the main exposure variable (representing the number of connections a person had in their life). Suicide and attempts as outcomes were modelled separately and in combination using conditional logistic regression modelling. The analysis was adjusted for marital status, socio-economic status, and diagnosis of an affective or anxiety disorder. Results: Following adjustment for other variables, those who had 3-4 social connections had 74% lower odds of suicide deaths or attempts (OR=0.26, 95% CI 0.08, 0.84, p=0.025), and those with 5-6 connections had 89% lower odds of suicide deaths or attempts (OR=0.11 95% CI 0.03, 0.35, p<0.001), compared to those with 0-2 social connections. With the number of social connection types specified as a continuous variable, the odds ratio was 0.39 per connection (95% CI 0.27, 0.56, p<0.001). Conclusions: A greater number of social connections was significantly associated with reduced odds of suicide or attempt. This suggests that suicide prevention initiatives that promote increased social connections at an individual, familial, and wider social levels might be effective.

Lemkin, the law and his legacy

Today I want to look at the proceedings that led up to the adoption of the GC in the UN. The events that led to the ratification by the UN are likewise intricate, but today we’ll just focus on the adoption. So adoption is where agreement is made on the content and form of the proposed treaty, so the Article in the GG are the focus here. After adoption, the treaty is ready for signatures and ratification. But the process isn’t as simple as it sounds.

Privacy, dataveillance, and crime prevention

Whether privacy is an adequate legal safeguard against intrusive government or private sector activity remains open for further exploration. The criminal law has always imposed limits on the ability of police to enter private premises and seize property associated with criminal activity, while preserving the rights of “mass private” property owners and their agents to selectively exclude people from entering or remaining on their premises. The appropriate balance between these issues and “the right to be let alone” is often determined by judicial rulings in individual cases. However, the balance between a claimant’s personal rights to be free from undue surveillance and the broader public interest in preventing crime or promoting safety is not always clear. New forms of personal data collection and dissemination through ICTs reconfigure the balance between private and public knowledge (Australian Law Reform Commission 2008), while social network analysis is increasingly deployed by law enforcement agencies to detect and prevent crime. Our ongoing research interrogates how the concept of privacy can be reconciled with the growing use of dataveillance, data mining, and social network analysis to prevent crime and antisocial behavior.

Criminalising controlling and coercive behaviour: the next step in the prosecution of family violence?

A new offence of controlling or coercive behaviour in intimate or family relationships has recently come into force in England. The parliament of Scotland is contemplating introducing a related offence. The offence is distinctive because it criminalises conduct – controlling and coercive behaviour – which has specified negative behavioural and psychological consequences without necessarily requiring that a victim sustain physical injury or fear death or serious harm. This significant extension of the criminal law supplements anti-stalking legislation and has been justified on the basis that it addresses a core feature of abusive relationships, is essential to protect the human rights of victims of domestic abuse, and has community support. In the context of the ongoing debate about how best to tackle the problem of domestic abuse in Australia, this development provides an innovative – albeit still untested – model and should be closely examined.

What sort of mandatory penalties should we have?

The argument in favour of a widespread fixed penalty regime - adopting a primary rationale for punishment would facilitate a more coherent and exacting approach to sentencing - the central objections against fixed penalties are that they are too severe and lead to unfairness because they are unable to incorporate all the relevant sentencing variables - by adopting a utilitarian ethic as the primary rationale for punishment, these problems can be circumvented - no utilitarian justification for disproportionate punishment, and penalties should not exceed the seriousness of the offence - no foundation for most sentencing considerations - by disregarding irrelevant considerations, the remaining can be incorporated into a fixed penalty system - the way would then be open for a coherent sentencing law system in which criminal justice is governed by pre-determined rules and principles as opposed to the intuition of sentencers.

Crime stories: posnerian pragmatism, Rawlsian pure procedural justice, and the fictional problem

There are many different ways in which law and truth may be said to be related. It is perhaps in the criminal trial that connections between them are of most significance. An orthodox way of describing a criminal trial is that the criminal procedure is seeking to establish the truth concerning some past event, and that success of the procedure is measured by how close its outcome converges with that truth. Criminal justice presents the community with challenging dilemmas in this regard, such as those arising from the notion of double jeopardy. This paper discusses the Rawlsian notions of 'imperfect', 'perfect' and 'pure' procedural justice, and suggests against Rawls that it is pure procedural justice that best represents what we want from a criminal justice system. Good procedure makes good criminal law. A comparison is made with the writings of Habermas and Posner, and given that pure procedural justice eschews transcendental truths, some brief comments are made on the convergence of that position with the realm of the fictional.

Back to the future : the war on terror and its impact on civil liberties

This comment looks at the capacity of the Australian Constitution to protect the civil liberties of a small number of citizens and would be citizens whose lives have been forever changed by recent acts of terror and the legislative and executive actions taken by the Commonwealth in response to those terrorist acts. These legal changes have included the creation of specific "terrorism" offences, the legislative proscription of two foreign organisations and, most notably, a significant expansion of ASIO's investigative powers.1
Whilst the Constitution contains a number of provisions and principles protective of civil liberties, in most instances they cannot resist government action expressly aimed at curtailing or infringing individual rights and freedoms. To this end, steps ought to be taken to strengthen existing institutions and mechanisms capable of providing meaningful civil rights scrutiny of government legislation. The comment begins with an examination of the close historical and legal parallels that exist between the present day and the Cold War era and suggests how the High Court might interpret the defence power should a terrorist attack occur on Australian soil. It concludes with a proposed reform. The reform involves vesting Ch III courts with the power to measure Commonwealth laws against the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights when determining a legal controversy. This may operate to secure better legislative outcomes from a civil liberties perspective without compromising the supremacy of Parliament.

The sentencing advisory commission and the hope of smarter sentencing

Sentencing law practice - confused and incoherent Sentencing has been described as the 'high point in anti-jurisprudence' (Smith 1997:174). This comment reflects the fact that sentencing law is devoid of an overarching rationale. It is marked by a high degree of discretion and is shaped more by political expedience and intuition than informed inquiry and principle. The fact that sentencing is 'the most controversial and politically sensitive aspect of the criminal law' (Freckleton 1996:ix) has militated heavily against it being developed in a coherent and principled manner.